netdev - Re: [PATCH v16 net-next 0/1] introduce Hyper-V VM Sockets(hv

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:30:49 +0200
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
	"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
	"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>,
	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
	Rolf Neugebauer <rolf.neugebauer@...ker.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	Dave Scott <dave.scott@...ker.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 net-next 0/1] introduce Hyper-V VM Sockets(hv_sock)

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 02:54:59PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> 
> I know the kernel has already had a VM Sockets driver (AF_VSOCK) based
> on VMware VMCI (net/vmw_vsock/, drivers/misc/vmw_vmci), and KVM is
> proposing AF_VSOCK of virtio version:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=145952064004765&w=2
> 
> However, though Hyper-V Sockets may seem conceptually similar to
> AF_VOSCK, there are differences in the transportation layer, and IMO these
> make the direct code reusing impractical:
> 
> 1. In AF_VSOCK, the endpoint type is: <u32 ContextID, u32 Port>, but in
> AF_HYPERV, the endpoint type is: <GUID VM_ID, GUID ServiceID>. Here GUID
> is 128-bit.

OK, this could be a problem.

> 2. AF_VSOCK supports SOCK_DGRAM, while AF_HYPERV doesn't.
> 
> 3. AF_VSOCK supports some special sock opts, like SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE,
> SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_MIN/MAX_SIZE and SO_VM_SOCKETS_CONNECT_TIMEOUT.
> These are meaningless to AF_HYPERV.
> 
> 4. Some AF_VSOCK's VMCI transportation ops are meanless to AF_HYPERV/VMBus,
> like .notify_recv_init
> .notify_recv_pre_block
> .notify_recv_pre_dequeue
> .notify_recv_post_dequeue
> .notify_send_init
> .notify_send_pre_block
> .notify_send_pre_enqueue
> .notify_send_post_enqueue
> etc.
> 
> So I think we'd better introduce a new address family: AF_HYPERV.

I don't quite understand the logic here. All these sound like "AF_VSOCK
has this feature we don't need so (rather than not using the feature) we
are not going to use AF_VSOCK". I would understand if you pointed out
features important for you that are missing in AF_VSOCK but this kind of
reasoning sounds strange to me.

Michal Kubecek